and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2008, 09:17

5

This post receivedKUDOS

30

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65%(02:09) correct
35%(01:53) wrong based on 219 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

68. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"? I(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described? (E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2008, 11:10

IMO D,

all responding the same way goes againt the fact that 'selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts'. Hence responses should vary per person to person cause the part that responds has no idea about the fact that the person is deaf. And for it to say 'Yes' each time, is not in line with the above mentioned fact( to me then it seems they are then connected)

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Jul 2008, 11:57

Yea it is a contentious CR.

I still believe that if they are not connected, their actions will be independent of each other. The responces either being 'Yes' or a 'No' to me says somehow the responing part knows that it is a 'Yes'/'No' question. If it knows then there is a connection established right there.Rather if the response is random, that would prove that the responding piece is independent reacting is whichever way it pleases (not bounded by a yes/no situation).

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 09:14

3

This post receivedKUDOS

perfectstranger wrote:

68. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?(A) Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"? I(B) Why are the observed facts in need of anyspecial explanation?(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept thehypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf? C D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond thesame way in the situation described? E) Why are the separate parts of the self the samefor all subjects?

Conclusion : the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"? - Weakener - If the parts are dissociated for each other. then the part that replies is not aware of wat its saying then why should it always says "Yes" (B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation? - Irrelevant(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf? - - Irrelevant Not sure!!!!(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described? nothing to do with the theorist views E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects? - Nuteral

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Aug 2014, 21:09

68. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

Conclusion : selves are dissasociated. For example , subject left hand doesn't know about right hand of the subject. Prove that still somehow there is a relation between then you will weaken the argument.

Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?(A) Why does the part that replies not answer,"Yes"? POE(B) Why are the observed facts in need of anyspecial explanation?out of scope. It has already happened and given as a premise.(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept thehypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf? COFSD) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond thesame way in the situation described? OFSWe dont know whether all of them respond the same way. further, the focus is on why they respond than on how all respond.

E) Why are the separate parts of the self the samefor all subjects?OFS. We are looking for correlation between dissociated parts in a single subject. How all others respond is out of scope.

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Sep 2014, 10:56

Valii wrote:

My approach: If the two parts are truly disassociated, then the answering part is not deaf. Hence, it should answer the question: Can you hear me? with a Yes. Hence the answer here is A.

Still dont really get it. To me, the answer of "yes" or "no" doesn't make any difference because the subject does ANSWER. No matter the answer is correct or not, the fact that the subject does answer means he/she can hear. If would make more sense if the subject remains silence... which truly prove that he/she is deaf!

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Sep 2014, 00:45

3

This post receivedKUDOS

MulanQ wrote:

Valii wrote:

My approach: If the two parts are truly disassociated, then the answering part is not deaf. Hence, it should answer the question: Can you hear me? with a Yes. Hence the answer here is A.

Still dont really get it. To me, the answer of "yes" or "no" doesn't make any difference because the subject does ANSWER. No matter the answer is correct or not, the fact that the subject does answer means he/she can hear. If would make more sense if the subject remains silence... which truly prove that he/she is deaf!

Hello MulanQ

I understand the question's logic is quite hard to digest. The key point is that the deaf part is dissociated from the replies part. It means that no matter one can/can't hear anything, he/she always replies in a predetermined way. In this question, the deaf part means one is hypnotized to become "deaf", he/she is not a deaf person. (I think you misunderstood this point). In order to prove that the two parts is dissociated, we have to prove TWO cases, NOT only one used by the author.

If the deaf part is dissociated from the replies part, so:

Case #1: Although one can actually hear, he/she always replies "NO". --> It means the the "deaf" (or the hearing part) does not affect the reply part. (If he/she says "YES", he/she may hear something actually --> the deaf part may not dissociated from the reply part).

Case #2:Although one does NOT hear anything, he/she still replies "YES" --> It means the the "deaf" (or the hearing part) does not affect the reply part. (If he/she says "NO", he/she may not hear anything actually --> the deaf part may not dissociated from the reply part).

If the two cases above are shown properly, the argument's conclusion is correct. But if only one case is shown, case #1 in this question, we can't conclude that the deaf part is dissociated from the replies part.

A shows that the author "forgot" case #2, so the conclusion should be weaken.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Re: When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Jul 2015, 15:14

This is a tricky question. Here is my take on why the correct answer is A:If the part that replies says 'No' it means that this part actually heard the question, and therefore the subjects are not deaf. I think the explanation provided by the theorists is just there to confuse us. Simply put, answer choice A is basically saying: If you replied 'No' that means you heard the question and that means you are not deaf, so you should have replied 'Yes'. The explanation offered by the theorists is based on the assumption that test subjects are deaf (which as I stated, isn't the case since they heard the question in the first place). Anyway, that was my understanding.

Show Tags

10 Jan 2016, 10:05

Hi,

Could anyone please help me understand below question.I am not getting the intended meaning of this question.

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Show Tags

Could anyone please help me understand below question.I am not getting the intended meaning of this question.

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Thanks & regards,Sheshadri

hi Sheshadri,lets see what does the Para tell us..

people who are hypnotized are told that they are deaf, which means they should not hear anything thereafter. But when asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they say 'NO'.We can say that they may say NO, but they are answering our Q. to this, the hypnotist reason that hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies...

we have to find aweakness in this arguement..(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?..A tells us that if they are dissociated into separate parts and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies, why doesn't it say 'YES'...this means they can hearHope it helps
_________________

Show Tags

11 Jan 2016, 06:27

sheshadritalla wrote:

Hi,

Could anyone please help me understand below question.I am not getting the intended meaning of this question.

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist’s suggestion that they are deaf?(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?

Thanks & regards,Sheshadri

HI Sheshadri, Lets go with the options.A) -> The author quoted that " the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies" ( Because the author said parts are dissociated. The mouth will accept whatever hypnotizer says. Mouth can detect whether ears can hear or not according to the logic given. So it should have said YES instead of NO.)All the other options don't have any bearing on the logic presented in the argument.B) clearly no useC)-> second best answer choice. But it is asking a question not related to logic presentedD) -> not addressing logic presentedE) -> same as D

Show Tags

11 Jan 2016, 09:40

2

This post receivedKUDOS

sheshadritalla wrote:

When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deafand are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, “No.” Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?

We are told that " the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts " & " the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies." so we can conclude -

There can be 2 distinct parts -

1. Deaf Part- Can not hear any sounds2. Non Deaf Part ------> Can Hear sounds

Now we also know -

Quote:

the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.

So the reply " No " comes from theNon Deaf Part( Which can actually hear the sound)

Now comes the most important question from the above - Why does the part ( Non Deaf Part - which can hear sound) which reply NO

The part which is replying No can actually listen sound ( asked by the Psychologist ) , then why is it replying on behalf of the Deaf Part which Can not hear any sounds ?

(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, “Yes”?Thus the only correct answer is (A)_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

Show Tags

The argument clearly mentions that the part that is deaf is not connected with the part that replies. This is a weaken question; hence any answer choice which says that the two parts are not dissociated is my answer. When the hypnotist asked the subject whether he can hear, the answer should have been "yes" if it is true that the part that replies has no correlation with the part that is deaf as suggested by the argument. Instead the answer is "no" which clearly indicates a flaw in the reasoning. Hence "A" negates the conclusion and identifies the flaw in the reasoning.
_________________

Show Tags

23 Mar 2016, 00:32

AryamaDuttaSaikia wrote:

The argument clearly mentions that the part that is deaf is not connected with the part that replies. This is a weaken question; hence any answer choice which says that the two parts are not dissociated is my answer. When the hypnotist asked the subject whether he can hear, the answer should have been "yes" if it is true that the part that replies has no correlation with the part that is deaf as suggested by the argument. Instead the answer is "no" which clearly indicates a flaw in the reasoning. Hence "A" negates the conclusion and identifies the flaw in the reasoning.

Hi GMATers,You know how to tell a question you quickly skip during your actual GMAT?Answer: A question as this for you have to break meander through arcane presuppositions in order to get the answer. It wouldnt hurt your mark. Most GMAT questions, even 700 level are not like this. Are they?Just look carefully at the explanation in the above quote.AryamaDuttaSaikia changed the statement "subjects are dissociated into diff parts" to "subjects subjects are disociated into diff parts that has no correlation"! Where is that coming from?It's a bit like, I see the OA first, then i begin to twist the explanation to fall in.Lets look at C.If they are deaf, do they have to accept they are deaf? Well they wouldnt. They would just mope because they wouldnt even hear the hypnotist telling them they are deaf. In effect, telling me that I'm deaf and I agree with you is like we are just having childish fun and I'm not any deaf.I go with C. Well, in effect A and C are probable correct choices.Why would you waste your time like this in a CAT?Why not proceed to the next question and you have saved for yourself a useful 2 minutes to answer less magical questions that will reward you for spending your time on them.